Methodological quality: Difference between revisions
Editor iHTS (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''<small><sup>[http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/ISG/PatientInvolvement/Glossary/HTAiPatientAndConsumerGlossaryOctober2009_01.pdf 18]</sup> Single A, et al., compilers. HTAi consumer and patient glossary: a beginner’s guide to words used in health technology assessment. Version 1. (Edmonton (AB)): Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi); 2009. <sup>19</sup>Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA. The art of quality assessment of R...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
'''Note 1:''' Better quality studies are more likely to yield results that are less biased and closer to the true value for an outcome than poorer quality studies. | '''Note 1:''' Better quality studies are more likely to yield results that are less biased and closer to the true value for an outcome than poorer quality studies. | ||
== Reference == | |||
http://htaglossary.net/methodological-quality | |||
Latest revision as of 13:48, 21 November 2023
18 Single A, et al., compilers. HTAi consumer and patient glossary: a beginner’s guide to words used in health technology assessment. Version 1. (Edmonton (AB)): Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi); 2009. 19Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7):651–4. 20
Lundh A, Gotzsche PC. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008,8:22.
The extent to which the design, conduct and analysis of a study are likely to have prevented systematic error and to have produced results that are reliable and valid.
Note 1: Better quality studies are more likely to yield results that are less biased and closer to the true value for an outcome than poorer quality studies.